Tuesday, July 25, 2006

flanders and lovejoy: the children should be taught an alternative to darwinian evolution!skinner: you mean lamarckian evolution?

yeah, i thought it was pretty funny too.

the differing and sometimes evolving views of evolution (while lamarckian evolution has been discounted, there are also newer neo-darwinism and neo-lemarckism in the scene) had me thinking about the varying creation myths within mormonism (i use the word myths in the sense of religious narrative, and not necessarily to denote fantasy or supernatural). off the top of my head, i could come up with at least 6 different mormon creation myths.

the first two come from the genesis account and lay the foundations for all other accounts.

1. the priestly version is contained in genesis chapter 1 through the third verse of chapter 2. in this account, god (el/ohim) creates the heavens, earth, and life in seven days. humanity is created in god's image and then god considers the work done.2. the yahwist account begins in the fourth verse of chapter 2. in this version no duration of time is given. god forms adam out of mud, breathes life into him, removes a rib from adam with which god creates eve, god then plants the garden of eden and places the naked couple in the garden. the whole garden story is a part of the yahwist account.

3. the mosaic version in the book of moses combines the priestly and yahwist versions, but tries to reconcile the two by making a distinction between spiritual creation and material creation. the serpent is directly identified as satan, though is still a serpent in form. after their banishment from the garden particulars about their lives, worship, and families are further elaborated on.4. the abrahamic version in the book of abraham begins with a pre-creation account where the process is planned and discussed. the monotheism of the earlier accounts is replaced with a plurality of gods. like the mosaic account, both the priestly and yahwist accounts are both used. unlike the mosaic account, this time the priestly version is presented as the plan, while the yahwist account is the implementation. the garden myth is only briefly introduced.5. the endowment version was first introduced by joseph smith. it combines the priestly and yahwist accounts but presents them both as material creations. the gods of the abrahamic account are given a hierarchical order, satan is now in the form of a human, and various endowment rituals are intermixed within the narrative. over the last century various charactersand storylines have come and gone.6. the adam-god version was taught as revealed doctrine by brigham young and his counselors. some have attributed it to joseph smith. in this account, god the father takes on mortality and becomes adam. one of god's plural wives also takes on mortality and becomes eve.

while certain reconciliations or denials have been attempted, the differences seem to me to be too distinct and sometimes too drastic for reconciliation. instead each should be understood as a single and self-sufficient creation myth. the key to making sense of them is in the endowment and mosaic accounts where adam represents each individual human "which is many"(moses 1:34). each creation myth should not be understood in terms of modern science, but in terms of religious identification, myth, and understanding. they are true, not by correlation to any scientific method, but by correlation to human experience, purpose, and value. each rendition is provided to express a different divine understanding of humanity.

7 comments:

"each creation myth should not be understood in terms of modern science, but in terms of religious identification, myth, and understanding. they are true, not by correlation to any scientific method, but by correlation to human experience, purpose, and value."

There are many people who disagree with you here. The problem with evolution being taught in public schools stems around the fact that people do understand "creation myths" as more than just a religious understanding. They don't accept evolution because to them it contradicts what the stories of creation say. I'm glad you put this down in words (sometimes I think people think badly of me because I agree with evolution, and I don't want Intelligent Design taught in the science classroom. This cleared up their perspective a little bit for me).

heather: i was really tempted to include a seventh option 7. the scientific/darwinian version, but i decided not to.

from an lds perspective, i have a hard time understanding how someone who has witnessed the endowment drama still holds a literal (scientific) understanding of the creation myth. this does not mean that i don't think the creation narratives could be understood literally, they can. however in a religious context, 'literal' has to be used within the religious framework.

from an lds perspective, i have a hard time understanding how someone who has witnessed the endowment drama still holds a literal (scientific) understanding of the creation myth.

Doublethink, perhaps?

Actually, I think a lot of temple goers don't think too much about figuratism. They just assume that the endowment presentation of the creation and Garden of Eden drama are roughly how it really happened, even though it contradicts all of the scriptural accounts in some way or another, and even points out that Adam and Eve represent the human family collectively. Not once, in church or in the temple, have I heard anybody infer that the events portrayed in the endowment ceremony aren't 100% literal.

Mormons have a tough time taking anything figuratively, even though symbolism and figuratism are the foundation of the temple rituals.

I'll try to refrain from using too much hyperbole in my future posts. I think that many Mormons can appreciate symbolism in many forms (one obvious example would be the sacrament). However, I really have never heard it suggested by anyone outside of the Bloggernacle that the Creation and Garden of Eden scenes as portrayed in the temple didn't literally happen in that manner. Perhaps my perceptions, as based on my interactions with Mormons, aren't representative of collective Mormon thought. But if you get up in Sunday and suggest that the events portrayed in the endowment video may be more figurative than literal, I would wager that more than a few would have problems with it.

I had an embarrassing experience one day on my mission being teamed up with with a zone leader and watching him make fun of some sixty year old jehovah's witness lady for believing that satan was literally a snake in the garden of eden. I tried to pull him away, but he kept going off on her. He thought the temple drama should be understood very literally and that anybody who believed the Genesis accound (even non-mormons) were stupid.

Please provide a name or consistent pseudonym with your comments and avoid insults or personal attacks against anyone or any group. All anonymous comments will be immediately deleted. Other comments are subject to deletion at my discretion.

disclaimer

all posts are solely the views, opinions, and facts expressed by the author of project mayhem and do not necessarily represent the opinions and views of blogger, google, the united states of america, any governmental organizations or leaders, claremont graduate university (or any of its centers, departments, or faculty), don knotts, chuck palahniuk, brigham young university, any ancient, medieval, modern, late-modern, or post-modern philosopher, the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints, president thomas s. monson (or any other member of the lds hierarchy), god, jesus, allah, el, yahweh, krishna, mohammed (peace be upon him), brahmann, vishnu, baal, satan, asheroth (or any other deity), the ericson family, the kool-aid man, or any past or future version of myself.